MAMOZAI IQBAL v. THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE APPOINTED TO DETERMINE THE APPLICANT’S PETITION AND ANOTHER

CACV 449/2019

[2020] HKCA 650

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 449 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 775 OF 2018)

_____________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Yuen JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This court (Hon Yuen JA and Lisa Wong J) handed down judgment on 28 May 2020 ([2020] HKCA 359) dismissing the applicant’s appeal from an order of DHCJ Bruno Chan given on 20 September 2019 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review concerning his non-refoulement claim. The facts and issues in the appeal before the Court of Appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.

2.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion on 4 June 2020, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

3.  On 5 June 2020, the Registrar of Civil Appeals directed that the applicant shall lodge his written submissions on or before 18 June 2020, and the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  The applicant filed his written submissions on 18 June 2020.  We agree it is appropriate to determine this application on paper. 

4.  The applicant only stated the following in his Notice of Motion:

“Respected Sir/Madam, its an my humble request to you that I have problem in own country please give me some time to stay here so that I can solve my problem. At this moment I cannot go back to my home country because danger still there for me. Please allow me to process further my case. I will be [grateful] to you.” (sic)

5.  The applicant did not provide any grounds of appeal.  In his written submissions, he mainly repeated his claim that his life would be in danger if he is refouled to Afghanistan. However, these arguments had been advanced by the applicant previously before the judge and this court.  He has not addressed the reasons in this court’s judgment at all.

6.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal if the question involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal. 

7.  No question of great general or public importance has been identified in the Notice of Motion.

8.  Nor do we see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b). 

9.  By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion dated 4 June 2020 is dismissed.